A D.C. Superior Court judge dismissed Councilmember Jim Graham’s (D-Ward 1) request for an injunction and restraining order against the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability, meaning that the board’s recent opinion slamming Graham will be in full view next week when the D.C. Council votes on whether to reprimand him.

In its opinion, the ethics board wrote that even though it lacked the legal authority to take further action, it found that there was “substantial evidence” that Graham used his influences as both a Council member and a Metro board member in 2009 when he backed a contractor’s bid to take over the D.C. Lottery in exchange for that contractor backing off a Metro project. Since the ethics board’s report, Graham has argued that the board violated his constitution rights and that its opinion should be invalidated because of its lack of legal teeth.

But reacting to a perception that Graham has further eroded the public’s trust in the D.C. Council, Chairman Phil Mendelson yesterday said that he plans to pursue a reprimand against Graham next week. A reprimand is little more than a formal slap on the wrist, but requires the votes of just a simple majority of members present. A censure would require the creation of a special investigation that would take longer to complete. Graham said yesterday that he prefers the latter, as he believes it would offer a chance to clear his name.

The Council will also vote on a measure that would return oversight of the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration from the Human Services Committee, which Graham chairs, to the Regulatory and Consumer Affairs Committee.